Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carl a. mehr who wrote (173364)	3/6/2003 11:54:25 PM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 186894

Re: When people do the math and realize that Intel's earnings per quarter is next to zilch Look out, you're going to get yelled at by the Wanna_Be, again. But he won't even attempt to dispute your point, instead, he'll make a personal attack against you. The sad truth is that Intel is better than a lot of other companies - which doesn't excuse what Intel's managment has done, but a number of other company's managements deserve harsher criticism than Intel's. Having said that, it's interesting that Intel's Assets dropped by $5 Billion during the past two years, but they reported that they earned almost $3 Billion in that period (Q3 2000 to Q3 2002). The numbers don't add up. They're off by $8 Billion. But Intel can continue losing $2.5 Billion per year for a while - they still have quite a bit left. Regards, Dan

To: carl a. mehr who wrote (173364)	3/7/2003 1:02:21 AM
From: ehasfjord	Respond to of 186894

That would put it back to the levels of 1996. I think not. Take Care

To: carl a. mehr who wrote (173364)	3/7/2003 8:40:30 AM
From: rkral	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

OT ... carl, re "When people do the math and realize that Intel's earnings per quarter is next to zilch, except for 2 or 3 cents ... " re "2 or 3 cents". That's quite meaningless hyperbole. Why meaningless? If the economic downturn in technology were even worse, the earnings before expensing options could easily be negative. Neither your "2 or 3 cents" nor the negative number tells me anything about INTC's option expenses. Why hyperbole? On a per share basis, if 1Q03 is like 4Q02, GAAP earnings will be 16 cents, SFAS 123 option expenses will be 4 cents, for a net of 12 cents after expensing options. That's considerably higher than your "2 or 3 cents". re "do the math". I absolutely agree with that point. But since you have apparently already done so, it's foolish for many others on this thread to waste their time doing the same. So I invite you to share your numbers. But present meaningful numbers without hyperbole. For example, show us how Intel execs hog more of the stock option pie at their company .. than execs at other technology companies. After all, when we withdraw our investment dollars from INTC, most of us would still like to have those dollars invested in the technology sector. Regards, Ron

To: carl a. mehr who wrote (173364)	3/7/2003 9:33:17 AM
From: greg s	Respond to of 186894

carl, re: Option Math: Why So Many to So Few By DAVID LEONHARDT In the article he writes: Intel, widely respected over the years as a well-managed company, is the most aggressive distributor of options on the Rutgers list. Your quoting of this snippet out of context and without a link is very misleading. I read this article a while back and the writer's comment, "most aggressive distributor of options on the Rutgers list", referred to Intel's award of options to the rank and file employees, not the "lunch bunch" you are so fond of berating. Your post is misleading at best.

To: carl a. mehr who wrote (173364)	3/9/2003 3:33:16 AM
From: Jacques Newey	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Carl, Would strongly encourage you to read Warren Buffett's recent annual letter to shareholders. berkshirehathaway.com Here's a snippet: "Corporate Governance Both the ability and fidelity of managers have long needed monitoring. Indeed, nearly 2,000 years ago, Jesus Christ addressed this subject, speaking (Luke 16:2) approvingly of “a certain rich man” who told his manager, “Give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest no longer be steward.” Accountability and stewardship withered in the last decade, becoming qualities deemed of little importance by those caught up in the Great Bubble. As stock prices went up, the behavioral norms of managers went down. By the late ’90s, as a result, CEOs who traveled the high road did not encounter heavy traffic. Most CEOs, it should be noted, are men and women you would be happy to have as trustees for your children’s assets or as next-door neighbors. Too many of these people, however, have in recent years behaved badly at the office, fudging numbers and drawing obscene pay for mediocre business achievements. These otherwise decent people simply followed the career path of Mae West: “I was Snow White but I drifted.” In theory, corporate boards should have prevented this deterioration of conduct. I last wrote about the responsibilities of directors in the 1993 annual report. (We will send you a copy of this discussion on request, or you may read it on the Internet in the Corporate Governance section of the 1993 letter.) There, I said that directors “should behave as if there was a single absentee owner, whose long-term interest they should try to further in all proper ways.” This means that directors must get rid of a manager who is mediocre or worse, no matter how likable he may be. Directors must react as did the chorus-girl bride of an 85-yearold multimillionaire when he asked whether she would love him if he lost his money. “Of course,” the young beauty replied, “I would miss you, but I would still love you.” In the 1993 annual report, I also said directors had another job: “If able but greedy managers overreach and try to dip too deeply into the shareholders’ pockets, directors must slap their hands.” Since I wrote that, over-reaching has become common but few hands have been slapped. Why have intelligent and decent directors failed so miserably? The answer lies not in inadequate laws – it’s always been clear that directors are obligated to represent the interests of shareholders – but rather in what I’d call “boardroom atmosphere.”" Inner Circle Lunch Bunch = “boardroom atmosphere.”" More great stuff in there on options grants, greedy managemnt behaviour, etc... Note that Berkshire Hathaway just recorded $4.2 B in profits in 2002. What was Buffett's 2002 annual gross salary? $100,000. How many options did he get? None. Moved my funds from Intel to Berkshire about three years ago. Very glad I did.